This is where we are talking about different things then. I know what epistemology is - ways of discovering knowledge. I am referring to knowledge as the thing that is to be discovered whilst you are referring to the process of knowing.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Well if you refer to knowledge as the thing that is discovered you're in trouble. It's what I'd call the epistemic fallacy; the reduction of what is (ontology) to what is known (epistemology). What is taken as known at any point in time can always be wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @colwight
Yes, knowledge is always provisional. And there is always more to know. This is dealt with by openly acknowledging that we are limited in getting at truth.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Exactly, so we can't ever say that our socially constructed knowledge of the world is 100% right. And what makes it possibly wrong is that it's not identical to what is. What there is would still be as it even if we had no knowledge of it. That's why knowledge isn't what is.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @colwight
See, we don't disagree except on the word. I'll use knowledge but accept that it is provisional and not necessarily or even probably identical to what is.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Well now we don't even disagree on the word. Now you're using knowledge as not synonymous of what is, you are acknowledging it (knowledge) is socially constructed. There's nothing to fear here. Knowledge can be socially constructed without destroying the world as it is.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @colwight
No, I'm not. I'm acknowledging it as provisional. We know the earth orbits the sun.This knowledge remains provisional but It was not brought into being by society. It is constructed from methods formed by society of getting at what is which will always be imperfect. Will that do?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
No the knowledge was brought into being by society. If there were no humans they'd be no knowledge the orbits. You're confusing epistemology with ontology and wide open to a postmodernist critique.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @colwight
I'll only be repeating myself if I respond to that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
You are where you are. But a sophisticated postmodernist (not a Twitter troll) will eat this up. Just trying to help. Ask
@peterboghossian. You have to differentiate knowledge from what it's knowledge of. All knowledge is socially constructed.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I have agreed with this! We have been here! I just don't think this is what is meant by 'socially constructed'. It's not the problem. I am not taking issue with people saying knowledge is provisional. I'm taking issue with them saying we make it up.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.